765,429
edits
Howling:What crashed the Byzantium?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Howling:What crashed the Byzantium? (view source)
Revision as of 04:45, 19 September 2012
, 19 September 2012enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification
No edit summary |
m (enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
: {{ | : {{Archive|The Howling archives}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ --> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::The consiquence of the second level is that there are conflicting versions of events and the events we see are only 'true' to us as we share the POV of the time travellers. We are time travelling observers just as the Doctor is so we match up with him. This does not mean that we, or him, are right. The conflict between versions may be resolved in the end and what we have seen may not be the 'final' reality. [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 08:44, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | ::The consiquence of the second level is that there are conflicting versions of events and the events we see are only 'true' to us as we share the POV of the time travellers. We are time travelling observers just as the Doctor is so we match up with him. This does not mean that we, or him, are right. The conflict between versions may be resolved in the end and what we have seen may not be the 'final' reality. [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 08:44, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::But we never see history right itself this way on the show (except in terms of further erasures, like Amy in | :::But we never see history right itself this way on the show (except in terms of further erasures, like Amy in [[GAME]]: ''[[City of the Daleks (video game)|City of the Daleks]]'' if you don't build the chronon blocker). The Doctor or someone else has to either stop the change before it happens ([[TV]]: ''[[Attack of the Cybermen]]''), undo the change through further time travel ([[TV]]: ''[[The Sound of Drums]]'', [[GAME]]: ''[[City of the Daleks (video game)|City of the Daleks]]''), or introduce a later change that undoes the most dramatic effects of the change in history ([[GAME]]: ''[[City of the Daleks (video game)|City of the Daleks]]'', [[PROSE]]: ''[[Just War (novel)|Just War]]''). Why bother with all of this if history could just fix itself? | ||
:::Similarly, why did the Time Lords have to create and maintain the Web of Time? It's stated pretty clearly that without this, history would be fragmented and inconsistent and causality would not hold. | :::Similarly, why did the Time Lords have to create and maintain the Web of Time? It's stated pretty clearly that without this, history would be fragmented and inconsistent and causality would not hold. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:Well, the Web of Time was also mentioned on TV, and, although they did go into more detail in the novels, they've discussed all kinds of related things--in particular, the idea of "fixed points in time"--quite a bit on TV, even (maybe even _especially_) in the post-Gallifrey universe. And yes, the key to maintaining it is, essentially, making sure the important thing happen--because they're not going to happen on their own. | :Well, the Web of Time was also mentioned on TV, and, although they did go into more detail in the novels, they've discussed all kinds of related things--in particular, the idea of "fixed points in time"--quite a bit on TV, even (maybe even _especially_) in the post-Gallifrey universe. And yes, the key to maintaining it is, essentially, making sure the important thing happen--because they're not going to happen on their own. | ||
:The fixed points were never fixed in the sense that they were _impossible_ to change (although | :The fixed points were never fixed in the sense that they were _impossible_ to change (although [[GAME]]: ''[[City of the Daleks (video game)|City of the Daleks]]'' implies that they're _difficult_), but that it was a very, very not good idea to change them. Again, watch ''Attack of the Cybermen'' and play ''City of the Daleks'' for similar pre-LGTW and post-LGTW examples. Even the Trickster can't just change things willy-nilly; he has to use his mostly-undescribed but apparently-super-powerful abilities to fix things up around his changes, and, as [[TV]]: ''[[Turn Left]]'' proves, even he can't always pull it off. | ||
:Meanwhile, your idea that conversations can't happen between people on incommensurate timelines is directly disproven by the conversations that Amy has with the Clerics in | :Meanwhile, your idea that conversations can't happen between people on incommensurate timelines is directly disproven by the conversations that Amy has with the Clerics in [[TV]]: ''[[Flesh and Stone]]'' ("Who's Pedro?", etc.). | ||
:The question is, when Crispin and Phillip were erased, did the other Clerics have a brand-new history created for them, which was self-consistent but inconsistent with Amy's history? Or did they just have a self-inconsistent and paradoxical history and not notice? | :The question is, when Crispin and Phillip were erased, did the other Clerics have a brand-new history created for them, which was self-consistent but inconsistent with Amy's history? Or did they just have a self-inconsistent and paradoxical history and not notice? | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:The simplest answer is that there is no such process. The Clerics' new history is the old history, minus Crispin and Phillip. It's inconsistent and paradoxical, but nobody noticed. If Amy had pushed them, if she'd asked, "Why can you only remember 18 clerics when Bishops always command 20?", that would have exposed the hole in their history. (Sure, their brains would probably fill in a reason, but that would be pure confabulation, with no ontological substance, and it would likely be different for each one of them.) | :The simplest answer is that there is no such process. The Clerics' new history is the old history, minus Crispin and Phillip. It's inconsistent and paradoxical, but nobody noticed. If Amy had pushed them, if she'd asked, "Why can you only remember 18 clerics when Bishops always command 20?", that would have exposed the hole in their history. (Sure, their brains would probably fill in a reason, but that would be pure confabulation, with no ontological substance, and it would likely be different for each one of them.) | ||
:This is exactly what happens in | :This is exactly what happens in [[TV]]: ''[[Vincent and the Doctor]]''--Amy is sad, but her sadness is a secret even to her, and in her Rory-less timeline, there is no reasonable explanation for it, so she just doesn't believe that she's sad--and yet, she is. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 12:55, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::The conversation about Pedro is compatible. The cleric has arrived at that point without the need for Pedro to exits by mechanisms we have not seen (a different personal history). Any has arrived through the history we have seen. Both are there and Pedro isn’t. Amy can explain this because she knows that Pedro has gone off and been swallowed or killed or something, the cleric can explain it because he knows that there was never anybody called Pedro there first place. They are both right. The only thing that need to be consistent between then is that they are there and communicating (although it is worth thinking about the source of the radio Amy has). | ::The conversation about Pedro is compatible. The cleric has arrived at that point without the need for Pedro to exits by mechanisms we have not seen (a different personal history). Any has arrived through the history we have seen. Both are there and Pedro isn’t. Amy can explain this because she knows that Pedro has gone off and been swallowed or killed or something, the cleric can explain it because he knows that there was never anybody called Pedro there first place. They are both right. The only thing that need to be consistent between then is that they are there and communicating (although it is worth thinking about the source of the radio Amy has). | ||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
:::Finally, if I can return to the novels again, you should at least read the summaries of the Enemy- and Faction Paradox-related EDAs on this site. Some of the issues are too complex to get into here, but one is dead simple: FP's entire point was to make changes that would leave "bare paradoxes" in history. Your theory seems to make this impossible. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 21:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | :::Finally, if I can return to the novels again, you should at least read the summaries of the Enemy- and Faction Paradox-related EDAs on this site. Some of the issues are too complex to get into here, but one is dead simple: FP's entire point was to make changes that would leave "bare paradoxes" in history. Your theory seems to make this impossible. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 21:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::: | |||
::: | |||
:::I like that problem very much. If a situation develops where there is no possible resolution then perhaps there can be no universe. That would be bad; exactly the sort of bad that the Doctor would have to fix once he figures out what is going on. | |||
::: | |||
:::Anyway, my suggested process (or one similar) is highly unlkey to be used as it is is too complicated to explain in the TV serial I feel. In fact a 'proper' explanation is unlikey to be given in full or many conflicting ideas may come forwards from different writers. Consistantacy does not seem to be that important from a quick check of the events in the novels, comics and old stuff. [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 07:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Consistency definitely wasn't important in the classic show and the comics. But in the novels, it was. Half of the people writing them were the fanboys who used to write in to DWM complaining about how the Doctor's explanation of the Blinovitch Limitation Effect in ''Mawdryn Undead'' contradicted the way it worked in past episodes, and the like. Of course sometimes the authors argued with each other about things, leading to things like other authors ignoring John Peel's revision of Dalek history or Lance Parkin disagreeing with the way they ended his War arc and rewriting the ending in a later book and starting a new spinoff series. But those problems came up because the novel writers cared deeply about continuity and consistency, not because they ignored it. | |||
::::In the revived series, the fans have taken over the asylum. RTD was an NA author, and so were half the others he brought in to write for him. | |||
::::Meanwhile, Moffat has said (I'm going to paraphrase here rather than search for the quote) that he's surprised at how few "real time travel stories" Doctor Who has done for a show about time travel, and one of the main things he wants to do is to change that. Of course the novels (and, to a lesser extent, the audios) _have_ done real time travel stories (especially the War arc I mentioned above), and Moffat knows the novels; it's just that the TV series hasn't done it. Paul Cornell argued that the reason the series hasn't done it isn't that it would have been too complicated for the viewers (it's not as if Andrew Cartmel ever let that get in the way...), but because the lack of consistency made it impossible to write anything that didn't suck (and he even pointed to ''Mawdryn Undead'' as an example). | |||
::::Anyway, if this season's big arc story is Moffat's "real time travel story" (and it obviously is, at least in part), then he'd have to have come up with a consistent mechanism for how all this stuff works, and made sure everyone used it consistently this season. And, since he's as much a fanboy as the rest of us, but also an experienced TV writer, I think with respect to what's come before, he'd try to keep it as consistent as possible, but no more (as in, he wouldn't deliberately throw away major bits of continuity unnecessarily, but he also wouldn't let some throwaway line from a 4th Doctor episode get in the way of a great plot line). --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 00:29, June 11, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes. I think that Moffat is really trying to do a real time travel story and I think that he is capable of a good one. As he is able to adjust the scripts and add bits in then he can place moments to suit his needs; sometimes this has been obvious (Rory's death and erasure stuck on the end of an episode) and some of them may be so subtle we haven't seen them at all. He also knows he's writing for two audinces and what he does needs to make sense to the people that have only watched the new series. I really don't know what his mechanism will turn out to be but I really do think (somehow) that he really means that the cracks actually do erase things from time itself with all of the problems this will cause. This does not seem to be the same thing as the doctor fixing timelines ("What are you thinking?" "Time can be rewritten" seemed to be a genuine revelation to the Doctor) so it's not even the same as the mighty De-Mat gun. A new paradigm for how the universe works might be too much("You canna change the laws of physics")but who knows? RTD tended to plant hints in episodes; just key words plonked in most of the time. From the rich and convoluted scripting, plotting and sequencing of something as simple Coupling you can see how much more Moffat is capable of. [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 09:06, June 11, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::PS there is a time travel story based around stonehenge and quantum mechanics. I can't remember it clearly though. Something to do with the Xyleee? [[User:Jack Chilli|Jack Chilli]] 09:06, June 11, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Skimming over most of the stuff, I think most people are forgetting something: The Cracks are symptom of the universe ceasing to exist, imagine the universe is a quilt and you start pulling cutting pieces out and pulling out threads the rest of the quilt remains unchanged. Basically when time travel is usually used to change something in the whoniverse the quilt is restitched but in the case of the Cracks the universe is literally falling apart. Hence when something was erased from history nothing changed because the universe simply wasn't capable of repairing itself properly leaving a universe that made no sense, a fact that was pushing into the extreme during The Big Bang. When Earth was all that remained, which as it stood made no sense since nothing else ever existed; the stars that forged the heavy atoms that make up Earth and everything on it, the history of things that occurred on Earth, that all never happened yet Earth and a (corrupted) version of it's history continued to exist. Basically the history left in place after the Cracks is a patchwork history left by the universe unable to repair itself. [[User:The Light6|The Light6]] <sup>[[User talk:The Light6|talk to me]]</sup> 12:48, September 30, 2011 (UTC) | |||
I don't quite follow that, but I admire the poetry. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 14:58, September 30, 2011 (UTC) | |||
I do follow it (or think I do) and it'd explain why some people, including the young Amelia, retain the idea of stars. --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.65.202|89.241.65.202]] 15:01, September 30, 2011 (UTC) | |||
